THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
ZEVACHIM 62-63 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
1) EATING "KODSHEI KODASHIM" IN THE "KODESH HA'KODASHIM"
OPINIONS: Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah teaches that if Nochrim besiege the
Azarah, shooting arrows and other artillery there, making it impossible for
the Kohanim to enter the Azarah in order to eat Kodshim, the Kohanim may
enter the Heichal (as the text appears in Menachos 8b, and as amended by the
Shitah Mekubetzes here) and eat Kodshei Kodashim there. He derives this from
the verse, "ba'Kodesh ha'Kodashim Tochlenu" -- "in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim
you shall eat it" (Bamidbar 18:10). Does this verse permit the Kohanim to
eat Kodshim only in the Heichal, or even in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim?
(a) The RAMBAN (to Bamidbar 18:10, quoting the Sifri) says that Rebbi
Yehudah Ben Beseirah's teaching applies to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim as well.
Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah could have said that if the Heichal was
surrounded, then the Kohanim could enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and eat
their Kodshei Kodashim there. This also seems to be the straightforward
meaning of the verse, which uses the term, "Kodesh ha'Kodashim," instead of
The SHA'AR MORDECHAI cites proof to the Ramban's view from the Gemara
earlier (56a) which says that the area of the Azarah was 187 Amos by 135
Amos, which includes the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Rav Nachman there says in the
name of his father that throughout all of this area, the Kohanim may eat
Kodshei Kodashim, thus including the Kodesh ha'Kodashim in the area in which
the Kohanim may eat their Kodshim.
The MINCHAS CHINUCH (Mitzvah 184:6) says that this ruling is relevant to
another question. The Minchas Chinuch inquires what the Halachah would be in
a case in which one enters the Heichal in order to eat the meat of a Korban
at a time when Nochrim are *not* besieging the Azarah. Would he receive
Malkus, just as a Kohen who enters the Heichal with no reason receives
Malkus, or does the prohibition to enter the Heichal for no reason not
apply, since the Torah explicitly permits entering the Heichal in order to
eat Kodshim there at a time when Nochrim are besieging the Azarah? The
Minchas Chinuch suggests that once the Torah permitted entering the Heichal
during a siege, it is not considered to be included in the prohibition at
all. He comments that if we extend this logic to the opinion of the Ramban,
then one who walks into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to eat Kodshei Kodashim
should not be punished by Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim, since it is not
considered part of the prohibition of walking into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim
for no reason!
(b) The IBN EZRA (to Bamidbar 18:10) asserts that the words "Kodesh
ha'Kodashim" in the verse refer to the Heichal, and not to the Kodesh
ha'Kodashim. Why, then, does the verse say "Kodesh ha'Kodashim?" He answers
that when compared with the Chatzer of the Mishkan, the Heichal can be
considered as Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
The RE'EM also argues with the Ramban. He asserts that we can include only
the Heichal as a place fit for eating Kodshim, because the Heichal is a
place into which the Kohanim are permitted to enter when there is a need. In
contrast, no regular Kohen (Kohen Hedyot, as opposed to the Kohen Gadol) is
ever permitted to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. In addition, entering the
Kodesh ha'Kodashim entails a more severe Lav, which is punishable with Misah
bi'Yedei Shamayim, and thus a positive commandment to eat Kodshim should not
override such a severe Isur. (See also KIRYAS SEFER, Hilchos Ma'aseh
(This also seems to be the opinion of RASHI (DH ba'Kodesh ha'Kodashim) in
our Gemara, who says that the words "ba'Kodesh ha'Kodashim" refer to the
Heichal. However, it could be that Rashi is merely pointing out that the
verse is saying that Kodshim may be eaten in another place other than the
Azarah, since the Azarah is already mentioned in a different verse (Vayikra
6:9). He might not be excluding the Kodesh ha'Kodashim from the intention of
the verse.) (Y. Montrose)
2) COMPARING A "KORBAN MINCHAH" WITH A "KORBAN CHATAS"
QUESTION: The Mishnah says that the procedure of offering a Chatas ha'Of was
performed at the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara derives this
from the verse written with regard to a Korban Minchah (brought by a
destitute person for his Oleh v'Yored), "He shall not place oil upon it, and
he shall not place frankincense upon it, because it is a Chatas" (Vayikra
5:11). The Gemara says that we see from here that a Minchah is called a
Chatas, and a Chatas is called a Minchah, teaching that their laws are
comparable in certain respects. The Gemara says, according to the Girsa in
our texts, that just as a Chatas must be slaughtered in the northern half of
the Azarah, so, too, a Minchah must be prepared in the north. Similarly,
just as a Minchah is offered on the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach, so,
too, a Chatas is offered on the southwest corner.
RASHI (DH Mah) writes that the text of the first comparison between a Chatas
and a Minchah is an error. Neither a Chatas ha'Of nor a Minchah are
performed in the north. The Minchah to which the Gemara here refers cannot
be the specific offering of a Minchas Chotei, which is an exception and is
offered in the north, because the Mishnah which says that a Minchah may be
offered anywhere in the Azarah does not list this as an exception. In
addition, how can it be that the Minchah -- which is offered instead of a
Chatas ha'Of -- must be offered in the north of the Azarah if the Chatas
ha'Of itself never needs to be prepared in the north of the Azarah?
What does the Gemara mean, then, when it compares a Chatas to a Minchah?
(a) RASHI (ibid.) writes that the text of the Gemara must be amended to
read, "Just as a Chatas is Pasul if it is offered with the intention that it
is a different type of Korban, so, too, a Minchah (a Minchas Chotei) is
Pasul if it is offered with the intention that it is a different type [of
Minchah]." This teaching is mentioned in Menachos (4a, see Rashi there).
TOSFOS (DH Mah Chatas) has difficulty with Rashi's explanation. One of
Tosfos' questions is based on the conclusion of the Gemara in Menachos (4a).
The Gemara there says that we learn that a Minchas Chotei is Pasul when it
is offered with the wrong intention from the fact that the word "Hi" is used
in the phrase "Ki Chatas Hi" (which teaches that a Chatas is Pasul when it
is offered with the wrong intention), and the same word is stated with
regard to a Minchas Chotei. The fact that the Gemara there does not give the
explanation that the Gemara gives here according to Rashi's correction in
the Girsa indicates that the Girsa that Rashi suggests is *not* the text in
(b) Tosfos (DH Mah Chatas) quotes RABEINU CHAIM who says that the Gemara
should read, "Just as a Chatas ha'Of must be offered next to the Yesod, as
the verse says, 'And the remainder of the blood shall be pressed out towards
the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach' (Vayikra 5:9), so, too, a Minchah requires
Hagashah opposite the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach." He learns that this teaching
is implied by a different Gemara in Menachos (61a). According to Rabeinu
Chaim, this teaching applies to all types of Minchah offerings and not just
to a Minchas Chotei. Tosfos asks how do we know that this applies for all
types of Minchah offerings, if the verse is stated only with regard to a
Minchas Chotei? Rabeinu Chaim answers that the words "Lifnei Hashem" are
stated with regard to both a Minchas Chotei and other Menachos. This teaches
that all Menachos, by definition, have similar characteristics (and not that
there is a Gezeirah Shavah which requires a Mesorah, and which teaches a new
(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU TAM who gives a different explanation. According
to Rabeinu Tam, the correct text should read, "Just as a Chatas must be done
with the right hand, so, too, a Minchah must be done [with the right hand]."
According to this explanation, the Gemara is arguing with the opinion of
Rebbi Shimon (25a), who says that the burning (Haktarah) of the Kometz must
be done only with the right hand if the Kohen is using his hand, as opposed
to doing the Haktarah with a vessel, in which case it may be done with the
left hand. Alternatively, Rabeinu Tam says that Rebbi Shimon's position does
not necessarily conflict with this statement. It could be that this is the
source for Rebbi Shimon's teaching that the burning of the Kometz must be
done with the right hand (in case one chooses to do the burning by hand, and
not with a vessel).
The TZON KODASHIM has difficulty with Rabeinu Tam's approach. The Gemara
earlier (25a) concludes that Rebbi Shimon uses a Gezeirah Shavah of "Yad" to
teach that a Minchas Chotei must be offered with the right hand. As
mentioned above, the verse cited by the Gemara is specifically dealing with
a Minchas Chotei, and, according to Rabeinu Tam, it is the *source* that a
Minchas Chotei must be done with the right hand. Why, then, does Rebbi
Shimon need the Gezeirah Shavah of "Yad?"
The MITZPEH EISAN answers this question based on the Gemara in Menachos
(72a-73a). The Gemara there discusses the opinion of Rebbi Shimon that a
Minchas Chotei of a Kohen is different than that of a Yisrael. Unlike the
Minchas Chotei of a Yisrael, the Kometz *and the leftovers* of a Minchas
Chotei of a Kohen are burned. Therefore, Rebbi Shimon requires two separate
teachings, both the Gezeirah Shavah of "Yad" and our comparison to Chatas to
teach that both the Minchas Chotei of a Yisrael and a Kohen must be done
with the right hand. (Y. Montrose)